Division Description Changes — Bills — Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail — 18th Oct 2023

Change	Division
representatives vote 2023-10-18#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-01-28 20:36:17	Title Bills — Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023; Consideration in Detail Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 - Consideration in Detail - Consider effectiveness of payments Description ~~<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p>~~ ~~<p>I move amendment (1):</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.34.1) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means it will now be included in the bill. ### What does the amendment do? Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.34.1): > This amendment relates to the terms of reference for the statutory review of the Water for the Environment Special Account, otherwise known as the WESA. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill opens the possibility of the WESA being used to support communities affected by water purchases. However, the bill does not go far enough towards ensuring the adequacy of support for impacted communities. It's here that I want to acknowledge the words of the member for Nicholls in the prior debate about this. We need to make sure, with this new element of the bill, that at every stage we put communities at the centre of compensation. > > My amendment would provide a review of government support to affected communities. It would absolutely scrutinise the government's support of communities, ensuring that it's commensurate with impacts experienced, and meaningfully address their needs. The amendment would achieve this by ensuring that the statutory review of WESA considers the effectiveness of payments made using WESA funds to adequately address any social or economic detriment that is associated with purchasing water access rights. ### Amendment text > (2) Schedule 1, page 7, after line 16, after item 11, insert: > >> 11A After subsection 86AJ(3) >> >> Insert: >> >> (3A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the effectiveness of payments made, or expected to be made, under paragraph 86AD(2)(c) in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b). <p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:</p> ~~<p class="italic">1A At the end of subsection 86AA(2)</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Add:</p>~~ <p class="italic">Note: Environmental outcomes can also be enhanced in other ways, including increasing the volume of water resources available for environmental use in the Darling-Baaka or in other northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin.</p> <p>This amendment is in relation to the new provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 which would allow the Water for the Environment Special Account to be used to purchase water entitlements toward the 450 gigalitres for environmental outcomes. It seeks to explicitly use the special account, including via buybacks, to enhance environmental outcomes in the northern basin. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that water recovery undertaken by the government towards the 450-gigalitre target is strategic. The government should target water recovery to deliver the maximum environmental benefit at the lowest socioeconomic and environmental cost. Water purchases along the Darling/Baaka or in other parts of the northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin offer the best potential to achieve this.</p> <p>When considering this bill I consulted widely, with water expert Lee Baumgartner at the Gulbali Institute; with Suzanna Sheed and Rob Priestly from the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District; with Dr Anna Roberts and Patten Bridge from the Water for Indi group of experts, which I convened in 2019; with the heads of the local catchment management authorities; with farmers, including Jock Blakeney and Jan Beer on the Goulburn; and with scientists from the Wentworth Group—all underlined to me that the government's approach to water purchases must be strategic. It must consider all areas of the basin, it must aim to maximise benefits and minimise negative impacts, and it should be equitable in terms of distribution of impacts.</p> <p>Part of such a strategic approach involves recognising the physical limits of the basin system. My electorate of Indi is not only the source of more than half of all the water flowing into the basin but also home to the basin's three largest water storages. As a result, the majority of environmental water already recovered is stored in Indi and flows through Indi. Environmental flows at their existing levels already have considerable negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts. During my visit to farmers along the Goulburn in Indi last week, floodwaters had inundated high-value farmland and destroyed silage, crops, pasture and fencing. High-flow releases of environmental water from the Eildon Weir have cut into the bank of the river, literally undermining century-old red gums, causing them to topple over. Erosion leads to sediment flowing down the river, with detriment to water quality and native fish habitat.</p> <p>Increases in environmental flows coming out of storage in Indi will only worsen environmental outcomes in these upper reaches of the Goulburn and Murray. Local land and water management organisations have clearly stated that if water is stored in Indi there is almost no way of getting it to South Australia without significant further riverbank erosion from high flows. The potential for further negative environmental impacts in Indi seems particularly inequitable when contrasted with the years of mismanagement and resultant overextraction and environmental collapse across the northern basin.</p> <p>The dire state of the northern basin is unacceptable and should shock all Australians, yet what is clear from this current reality is that the greatest potential for improvements to environmental outcomes is in the northern basin. This bill as it stands may not restore the health and connectivity of the Darling/Baaka that's so desperately needed. My amendment ensures that efforts to increase environmental water flow in the most degraded part of the Murray-Darling Basin are absolutely on the table.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Coulton</p>~~ <p>I speak in opposition to this amendment, particularly to item 1A in the member for Indi's amendment. An easy solution will fix this problem by taking the water from somewhere else, so take it from the northern basin. The northern basin is an ephemeral system that traditionally floods and goes dry. Water in the northern basin, by the way, is one of the biggest employers of Aboriginal people. We've heard a lot in the last month or two about how we care about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, while we might take the water away for places like Moree, Brewarrina, Burke Narrabri, Wee Waa, Gunnedah, Warren, Narromine, Dubbo. All of these towns rely on water from the northern basin. The reason they grow the crops they grow in the northern basin is that it is an ephemeral stream. I also represent the lakes at Menindee. Are we going to drain the lakes at Menindee more quickly to fulfil that 450-gigalitre promise to South Australia? You can't send the water back upstream, so have you been out and spoken to the people at Menindee about how this amendment will help drain those lakes quicker?</p> <p>I have been in this place for a long time. This is not my first rodeo when it comes to the water debate in this place. But I've got to say I've never seen before such a turning-away. At least for the first go around, when Minister Burke came up with this policy, there were some safeguards and there was a bit more balance. I actually supported the first Basin Plan. The 450 extra gigs that came in later was not part of the plan. I've never supported that, and now we have the member for Indi saying: 'That's fine, leave my area alone. We'll take it from up in the northern basin.' Incidentally, the Parkes electorate represents a third of the northern basin. My community has already been gutted by this. I suggest that the members might like to go and visit Collarenebri and see what happens there when a hundred jobs are lost, largely Indigenous jobs. Go to Toorale station and see what it's like at Bourke when a hundred jobs and 10 per cent of the ratepayers at Bourke Shire Council are removed. Go to Warren and see what happened when the water was purchased out of there, the businesses that have closed down and the empty streets.</p> <p>I will not take this lying down. The people of the northern basin have got just as much right to exist. The farmers in my electorate grow more food and fibre per megalitre of water and litre of diesel than anywhere else in the world. They are the most efficient users of water, and they have already taken significant cutbacks. They are very efficient, and I cannot support this amendment.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p>~~ <p>AINES () (): I rise to acknowledge the member for Parkes and his defence of his community. I understand what he is saying. I want to be clear that we each represent our communities in policy debates in this House, and I fully respect his views. I want to be clear, though, that this amendment speaks to targeting and strategic buybacks, and it's very easy when the largest amount of water that flows through the Darling Basin comes from the electorate of Indi to simply target the southern basin. I'm simply asking of the government that they're strategic, that we stop this Swiss-cheese approach of buybacks and that we target those buybacks. In that targeting we must consider the northern basin equally, rather than go simply to the southern basin, where the majority of water is stored.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">David Littleproud</p>~~ <p>Briefly, this is one of the most divisive, disgraceful amendments I've seen. We've had a nation that's been divided for the last six months, and now the member for Indi wants to come in here and pit community against community up and down the basin. We've had enough of that. We've explored that, and we've had it. The trauma is still there, and we're about to relive it. The member for Indi actually voted in the second reading debate for more buybacks, but then just then articulated the concern about the buybacks for her community. I just don't understand how the member for Indi can, with principle, stand there and support the government's bill to increase buybacks, and then move an amendment that says: 'Well, that's okay, because we don't want it to come from my part of the world.'</p> <p>This is about equity, and to say that we're going to pit one community against another—we're better than that. This country's better than that and this parliament's better than that. How could you walk in here and say you want to pit one community against another? That's one of the most disgraceful things I've seen in this parliament, and the Nationals will not support it.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Helen Haines</p>~~ <p>I've seen many disgraceful things in this parliament in the time that I've been here, so I do take objection at levelling that. I have consulted widely across my electorate and beyond. What I've asked for in this amendment is that the government consider strategic buybacks that have the best outcome for the impacts that the government are seeking to achieve. If the Leader of the Nationals were to go back and look at my speech from last night—and I encourage him to do so—he would understand that the people of Indi absolutely understand the competing interests of water. This is one of the most contested areas of public policy. What I am putting forward in this amendment is that if we are to do buybacks—and this bill is doing that—then we should do so backed by the science, and they should be done strategically so that we get the best outcomes for those buybacks.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tanya Plibersek</p>~~ <p>I know exactly where the member for Indi is coming from. She's talked about relying on the science if we are purchasing water and being strategic in those purchases. Of course, the government will do that. But I believe the proposed amendment, as drafted, is unnecessary.</p> <p>What I really want to do is keep the Water for the Environment Special Account as flexible as possible. The Leader of the Nationals has spoken a number of times about water purchase. I've said in this place—and I've said it consistently, including just this morning to the National Farmers Federation—that it's not the first tool we reach for; it's not the only tool in the box. One of the reasons that we want to keep this flexibility in the Water for the Environment Special Account is so that, if we have other options, including on-farm water efficiency options, water purchase and also other infrastructure programs, rules changes and so on, we have that full suite of options available to us in meeting the objectives of the plan. Consequently, the government won't be supporting this amendment; it is unnecessary. As was set out in the agreement of 22 August 2023, we are proposing as a government that projects that are funded from the Water for the Environment Special Account be based on an overall assessment of value for money, informed by minimising socioeconomic impacts on communities. We will, of course, consider both environmental, utility and water market price, and consequently the government won't be supporting this amendment.</p> ~~<p>Question negatived.</p>~~ ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Helen Haines~~
~~I move amendment (1):~~
The majority voted in favour of an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.34.1) introduced by Indi MP [Helen Haines](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/indi/helen_haines) (Independent), which means it will now be included in the bill.
### What does the amendment do?
Dr Haines [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-10-18.34.1):
> *This amendment relates to the terms of reference for the statutory review of the Water for the Environment Special Account, otherwise known as the WESA. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill opens the possibility of the WESA being used to support communities affected by water purchases. However, the bill does not go far enough towards ensuring the adequacy of support for impacted communities. It's here that I want to acknowledge the words of the member for Nicholls in the prior debate about this. We need to make sure, with this new element of the bill, that at every stage we put communities at the centre of compensation.*
>
> *My amendment would provide a review of government support to affected communities. It would absolutely scrutinise the government's support of communities, ensuring that it's commensurate with impacts experienced, and meaningfully address their needs. The amendment would achieve this by ensuring that the statutory review of WESA considers the effectiveness of payments made using WESA funds to adequately address any social or economic detriment that is associated with purchasing water access rights.*
### Amendment text
> *(2) Schedule 1, page 7, after line 16, after item 11, insert:*
>
>> *11A After subsection 86AJ(3)*
>>
>> *Insert:*
>>
>> *(3A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), a panel must also consider the effectiveness of payments made, or expected to be made, under paragraph 86AD(2)(c) in relation to a purchase referred to in paragraph 86AD(2)(b).*
(1) Schedule 1, page 5 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:
~~1A At the end of subsection 86AA(2)~~
~~Add:~~
Note: Environmental outcomes can also be enhanced in other ways, including increasing the volume of water resources available for environmental use in the Darling-Baaka or in other northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin.
This amendment is in relation to the new provisions of the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 which would allow the Water for the Environment Special Account to be used to purchase water entitlements toward the 450 gigalitres for environmental outcomes. It seeks to explicitly use the special account, including via buybacks, to enhance environmental outcomes in the northern basin. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that water recovery undertaken by the government towards the 450-gigalitre target is strategic. The government should target water recovery to deliver the maximum environmental benefit at the lowest socioeconomic and environmental cost. Water purchases along the Darling/Baaka or in other parts of the northern parts of the Murray-Darling Basin offer the best potential to achieve this.
When considering this bill I consulted widely, with water expert Lee Baumgartner at the Gulbali Institute; with Suzanna Sheed and Rob Priestly from the Goulburn-Murray Irrigation District; with Dr Anna Roberts and Patten Bridge from the Water for Indi group of experts, which I convened in 2019; with the heads of the local catchment management authorities; with farmers, including Jock Blakeney and Jan Beer on the Goulburn; and with scientists from the Wentworth Group—all underlined to me that the government's approach to water purchases must be strategic. It must consider all areas of the basin, it must aim to maximise benefits and minimise negative impacts, and it should be equitable in terms of distribution of impacts.
Part of such a strategic approach involves recognising the physical limits of the basin system. My electorate of Indi is not only the source of more than half of all the water flowing into the basin but also home to the basin's three largest water storages. As a result, the majority of environmental water already recovered is stored in Indi and flows through Indi. Environmental flows at their existing levels already have considerable negative socioeconomic and environmental impacts. During my visit to farmers along the Goulburn in Indi last week, floodwaters had inundated high-value farmland and destroyed silage, crops, pasture and fencing. High-flow releases of environmental water from the Eildon Weir have cut into the bank of the river, literally undermining century-old red gums, causing them to topple over. Erosion leads to sediment flowing down the river, with detriment to water quality and native fish habitat.
Increases in environmental flows coming out of storage in Indi will only worsen environmental outcomes in these upper reaches of the Goulburn and Murray. Local land and water management organisations have clearly stated that if water is stored in Indi there is almost no way of getting it to South Australia without significant further riverbank erosion from high flows. The potential for further negative environmental impacts in Indi seems particularly inequitable when contrasted with the years of mismanagement and resultant overextraction and environmental collapse across the northern basin.
The dire state of the northern basin is unacceptable and should shock all Australians, yet what is clear from this current reality is that the greatest potential for improvements to environmental outcomes is in the northern basin. This bill as it stands may not restore the health and connectivity of the Darling/Baaka that's so desperately needed. My amendment ensures that efforts to increase environmental water flow in the most degraded part of the Murray-Darling Basin are absolutely on the table.
~~Mark Coulton~~
I speak in opposition to this amendment, particularly to item 1A in the member for Indi's amendment. An easy solution will fix this problem by taking the water from somewhere else, so take it from the northern basin. The northern basin is an ephemeral system that traditionally floods and goes dry. Water in the northern basin, by the way, is one of the biggest employers of Aboriginal people. We've heard a lot in the last month or two about how we care about our Aboriginal brothers and sisters, while we might take the water away for places like Moree, Brewarrina, Burke Narrabri, Wee Waa, Gunnedah, Warren, Narromine, Dubbo. All of these towns rely on water from the northern basin. The reason they grow the crops they grow in the northern basin is that it is an ephemeral stream. I also represent the lakes at Menindee. Are we going to drain the lakes at Menindee more quickly to fulfil that 450-gigalitre promise to South Australia? You can't send the water back upstream, so have you been out and spoken to the people at Menindee about how this amendment will help drain those lakes quicker?
I have been in this place for a long time. This is not my first rodeo when it comes to the water debate in this place. But I've got to say I've never seen before such a turning-away. At least for the first go around, when Minister Burke came up with this policy, there were some safeguards and there was a bit more balance. I actually supported the first Basin Plan. The 450 extra gigs that came in later was not part of the plan. I've never supported that, and now we have the member for Indi saying: 'That's fine, leave my area alone. We'll take it from up in the northern basin.' Incidentally, the Parkes electorate represents a third of the northern basin. My community has already been gutted by this. I suggest that the members might like to go and visit Collarenebri and see what happens there when a hundred jobs are lost, largely Indigenous jobs. Go to Toorale station and see what it's like at Bourke when a hundred jobs and 10 per cent of the ratepayers at Bourke Shire Council are removed. Go to Warren and see what happened when the water was purchased out of there, the businesses that have closed down and the empty streets.
I will not take this lying down. The people of the northern basin have got just as much right to exist. The farmers in my electorate grow more food and fibre per megalitre of water and litre of diesel than anywhere else in the world. They are the most efficient users of water, and they have already taken significant cutbacks. They are very efficient, and I cannot support this amendment.
~~Helen Haines~~
AINES () (): I rise to acknowledge the member for Parkes and his defence of his community. I understand what he is saying. I want to be clear that we each represent our communities in policy debates in this House, and I fully respect his views. I want to be clear, though, that this amendment speaks to targeting and strategic buybacks, and it's very easy when the largest amount of water that flows through the Darling Basin comes from the electorate of Indi to simply target the southern basin. I'm simply asking of the government that they're strategic, that we stop this Swiss-cheese approach of buybacks and that we target those buybacks. In that targeting we must consider the northern basin equally, rather than go simply to the southern basin, where the majority of water is stored.
~~David Littleproud~~
Briefly, this is one of the most divisive, disgraceful amendments I've seen. We've had a nation that's been divided for the last six months, and now the member for Indi wants to come in here and pit community against community up and down the basin. We've had enough of that. We've explored that, and we've had it. The trauma is still there, and we're about to relive it. The member for Indi actually voted in the second reading debate for more buybacks, but then just then articulated the concern about the buybacks for her community. I just don't understand how the member for Indi can, with principle, stand there and support the government's bill to increase buybacks, and then move an amendment that says: 'Well, that's okay, because we don't want it to come from my part of the world.'
This is about equity, and to say that we're going to pit one community against another—we're better than that. This country's better than that and this parliament's better than that. How could you walk in here and say you want to pit one community against another? That's one of the most disgraceful things I've seen in this parliament, and the Nationals will not support it.
~~Helen Haines~~
I've seen many disgraceful things in this parliament in the time that I've been here, so I do take objection at levelling that. I have consulted widely across my electorate and beyond. What I've asked for in this amendment is that the government consider strategic buybacks that have the best outcome for the impacts that the government are seeking to achieve. If the Leader of the Nationals were to go back and look at my speech from last night—and I encourage him to do so—he would understand that the people of Indi absolutely understand the competing interests of water. This is one of the most contested areas of public policy. What I am putting forward in this amendment is that if we are to do buybacks—and this bill is doing that—then we should do so backed by the science, and they should be done strategically so that we get the best outcomes for those buybacks.
~~Tanya Plibersek~~
I know exactly where the member for Indi is coming from. She's talked about relying on the science if we are purchasing water and being strategic in those purchases. Of course, the government will do that. But I believe the proposed amendment, as drafted, is unnecessary.
What I really want to do is keep the Water for the Environment Special Account as flexible as possible. The Leader of the Nationals has spoken a number of times about water purchase. I've said in this place—and I've said it consistently, including just this morning to the National Farmers Federation—that it's not the first tool we reach for; it's not the only tool in the box. One of the reasons that we want to keep this flexibility in the Water for the Environment Special Account is so that, if we have other options, including on-farm water efficiency options, water purchase and also other infrastructure programs, rules changes and so on, we have that full suite of options available to us in meeting the objectives of the plan. Consequently, the government won't be supporting this amendment; it is unnecessary. As was set out in the agreement of 22 August 2023, we are proposing as a government that projects that are funded from the Water for the Environment Special Account be based on an overall assessment of value for money, informed by minimising socioeconomic impacts on communities. We will, of course, consider both environmental, utility and water market price, and consequently the government won't be supporting this amendment.
~~Question negatived.~~
~~Long debate text truncated.~~